Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 17:30:00 PM EST

Florida: The Florida Senate race turned nasty when former Sen. George LeMeiux held a press conference and said, "Connie Mack IV is the Charlie Sheen of Florida politics. Mack IV does not have the temperament or the character to serve in the United States Senate." LeMeiux was referencing a Miami Herald story that detailed four physical confrontations Mack had when he was in his early 20s, one arrest and then a host of financial troubles that became clear during his divorce shortly after he was elected to Congress.

Montana: A Rasmusses Reports poll of the Montana Senate race finds Rep. Denny Rehberg with a three point lead over incumbent Sen. John Tester. Rehberg leads 47 to 44% with 5% undecided.

AZ-6: Sen. Jon Kyl has endorsed Rep. Ben Quayle in his member versus member matchup with Rep. David Schweikert. Kyl said that Quayle's voting record is closest to his in the Arizona delegation. "And he's approached the issues in a very thoughtful way," the senator said, "so I think he deserves my support."

Ohio: Former Gov. Ted Strickland has not ruled out a rematch with Gov. John Kasich in 2014. Strickland was among the 35 people named as national co chairmen for President Barack Obama's reelection campaign this week.

Quayle just moved to Arizona a few years ago, and never won public office before being elected to congress. He won the Republican primary with a plurality of just 23! He defeated Jon Hulburd with 52%, in a district McCain won with 56%.

Schwiekert held elective office since 1991. He ran for congress twice before winning his seat in 2010. In 1996, he lost to J.D. Hayworth by a margin of 45%-21%. In 2008, he won the Republican primary with 30%, seven points higher than Quayle. He lost the general election to Blue Dog Democrat Harry Mitchell 53%-44%. He underperformed McCain by seven points. However in 2010 he defeated Mitchell in a rematch, matching McCain at 52%.

Even though Quayle currently represents 67% of the this new district, his home in Phoenix is placed outside of the CD, so he'll have to move into the district. This means he can be called a carpetbagger. Schwiekert currently represents 31% of the new CD, but he represented some more of this territory in the Arizona House of Representatives. I predict Quayle will lose by a wide margin.

with many people its nothing on their radar. In the end, I assume my area and WA-3 overall will vote for banning SSM, but it will probably be upheld statewide narrowly.

Im glad you mentioned Linda Smith. Great lady! Did you know she now travels the world saving children caught up in the sex trades? She was also my first memory of a politican, having my picture taken with her in a parade back in 1992 when she was still a state senator. I was hoping she would make a comeback in 2010 but I heart Jaime Herrera Bulter so much I don't mind lol.

One of the Republicans for it happens to be the only viable statewide contender we have right now. You try to primary Kittleman and I'll set up a freakin' Super PAC in his support. IMO he's the only one who has any chance at winning MD-Gov in 2014.

SSM support is necessary for a R to ever win statewide in MD because peeling off white liberals, while tough, is still easier than peeling off blacks.

For the impact on elections, sure. But this is one of the issues where lay persons have no idea what they are talking about. It's like if the NASA had polled Americans on intricate technical details of how to build a space ship in the 60s and then built the Apollo program based on that.

I have one, but it's not particularly relevant. I'm just saying that for a lot of technical issues, the opinion of the public shouldn't matter, because the public is uneducated on any given technical issue.

have no means, either technically or in terms of skills, to evaluate the risk Keystone poses to the environment. And come either to the conclusion that it poses a risk, or doesn't. This isn't simply, it requires simulations of what happens to the water supply in case leaks happen (which they will, the question is just if more like 10 or 100), calculations on the technical details of the pipeline and how it will react to stress, erosion and the like, and many other things.

I'm not saying that doing this stuff can't lead you to the result that Keystone is fine and should be OK'd. I'm just saying that the public has neither the possibility nor the interest not the responsibility to make an informed decision, and shouldn't be a factor here.

On questions that are more philosophical/ideological in nature
that's different, but this asks for an engineer, not a politician.

In the St Louis area, this is a different map than either of the illegal court panel maps. (First one would have been illegal with just one Jackson - Cass double cross, let alone the actual tripple cross; second map only illegal due to the court panel's no longer in legal existance after the first)

St Charles county: Unlike the court panel that ironed out the 10K surplus people for two ideal districts into the rural district (those in O Fallon), this map instead slightly overpopulates these two districts by 5 to 6K on average each.
This probably makes the Eastern district between 0.1 & 0.2% safer than the court panel.

St Louis Cities 2 districts: Safe D this way just as they were under the court map. The one crossing the line into St Louis county crosses at slightly different places, but those areas also D.

St Louis County: The 2 north county districts are safe D this way just as they were under the court map. I don't know offhand the VAP of those two districts. I suppose if one of them is below 50%, a VRA suit is possible, but I dought anyone in the effected district would care enough about say a 48 or 49% one.

#24 of course has flip risk in 2014. However, under current lines it was the most likely seat to flip. And had flip risk under the new one. I'd have to see the exact numbers to know if this is slightly better or worse than court panel #24. (I'd also need to see exact numbers to know if #15 [West County] or #1 [South County] are slightly better or worse than the court panel's version as well.)

St Louis county by itself even before you consider that St Louis city loss in population had to be ironed out using St Louis county was collectively 1/2 a seat short of the old number of districts, so its no surprise incumbents were double bunked. Nor was it a surprise it involved Republicans.

This also retained the traditional outer most St Louis county district goes into Franklin county.
This keeps the Northern most Jefferson county seat pretty much as is, and makes minor changes to not only the Southern Jefferson county seat, but all seats south of it.
(Contrast to court panel plan that made radical changes)

KC area: Respects county lines unlike the first plan. I don't know if its functionally significantly different than the court panel's second map.

Springfield area: Looks a bit like my original Springfield idea rather than either of the court panels.

Joplin: Same as court panel. Those two counties fit too well together to be otherwise.

It's the US Congressional districts that are in the MO Supreme Court (for the second time). You shouldn't have much longer to wait as the court is highly likely to render a decision before the end of the month. (Of course, that decision could be a remand back to Circuit court.)

Charlie White was holding out hope to get the charges reduced from felony, but the judge denied that. If that had happened, White could have stayed in office. Now the Democrats will make their push to get their 2010 candidate, who lost by 300,000 votes, declared the winner.

How could someone who lost by a very large margin be declared the winner? This is not democracy at all. I hope the IN Supreme Court will reduce the charges to misdemeanor and allow White to stay in office, or let Daniels appoint his successor.

that the SA court will likely adapt something very very close to AG's last agreement. The AG is the big dog, as far as appeals are concerned, and likely without the AG's support of a map the panel will likely be fragmented. If the SA panel is split on maps and the AG is filing appeals over the interim the court will likely be overturned at some point.

If the AG has some minority plaintiffs on board that bullet proofs it for appeals.

I think the DC court, apparently, will be striving to be narrow and unamious in its findings. Of course they could object to one precinct in each map and that would deny preclearance and that puts in back in SA for an interim map. So what DC says IMO might not help the plaintiffs. The DC panel knows the case law and the precedences so I look for a very narrow decision.

I'm just defending him when appropriate.
I still believe that the field sucks.
Both candidates have glaring weaknesses. Santorum with his pathetic campaign, Romney with his pathetic personality and record.

not great but not bad. As for the candidate, it is what it is. I don't know who is the perfect candidate. Bush in 88/92 wasn't, nor Dole in 96, GWB in 2000/04 or McCain in 2008. Point is, everyone has good and bad, there are better than Romney but worse as well. So I don't get too caught up in all that.

a former State Representative and C level candidate is considering running. Martin will make no dent in Griffin's warchest and will allow him to continue to stockpile money for 2014. Serious mistake by Democrats.

That Santorum had some solid hits and some stumbles, same with Mitt. Mitt might have been a little better than Santorum on average at the debate, but he failed to make the argument why someone should switch to support him. He failed to make the crucial contrast.

He is assured of going down some in the polls, how much we'll have to find out. I thought his chances were very low going into the debate so nothing has really changed. I think Intrade at 16% before and 8% now, is about his real chances.

Sounds like its just one night of polling, not the whole poll. And we don't know where he would have been without the debate. If he's up by 8, maybe that would have been 15 if not for the debate the night before. So inconclusive. I don't think it'll be a huge move down in MI and AZ, but enough of one to cost him any chance in MI.

whether the debate might've helped Santorum. Hear me out! It's true that many debates hinge on a key 'moment' or on matters of policy, but I really didn't see anything like that in the Arizona debate. What made more of an impression on me was that Santorum actually seemed far more likable than the rest of them - he was definitely the 'who would you rather have a beer with' candidate for that debate (does Santorum even drink?)

That of course has nothing to do with my politics - Santorum is no doubt the furthest from me when it comes to that. It was just how I felt he came across, and then I also wondered whether a 'sense of fairness' factor might kick in as well, considering the way the others ganged up on him. Now, to be sure, this is a very intangible factor so I have no strong belief one way or another. It's just something that I've had in mind.

It's worth noting that this sure wouldn't be the first time that subjective factors proved more important than 'points scored' in who won a debate. The 2000 debate where Gore kept sighing comes to mind. The pundits scored it as a clear Gore victory 'on points' - only later, when it became obvious that Bush's personality came across better did they start to talk about Gore's sighing.

Romney, especially, came off snippy and at times a bit nasty, including an occasion when he - for no apparent reason other than to manufacture a "moment" like the Newt Gingrich ones of yore, snapped at moderator John King about wanting to answer a question the way he wanted. The question was hardly a "gotcha" - it was about what he thinks he's misunderstood about.

Some of the tone was due to the format, which was only the second time the candidates have been seated for a debate. It added to a sense that they were in school, and Romney was the smartest kid in class.

That pretty much sums it up for me too, and if that's what ultimately moves those who watched, rather than arcane minutiae about the workings of earmarks or of the Judiciary Committee, then the debate will boost Santorum, not Romney.

But, to reiterate, much of this is just me thinking out loud. I don't have a strong sense one way or the other, and 'the Republican mind' is often inscrutable to me. lol

That the last part where Mitt refused to answer a simple non-gotcha question was his worst part in the debate. Most in the media didn't even mention it. I expected Mitt to give a normal answer and of course score a point by the way.

I was watching with my wife who is a very liberal Dem especially on social issues. While she strongly disagrees with Santorum on just about everything she could she his point of view. Basically the heartfelt way Santorum believes what he believes comes across in a positive way for most people even if they disagree with him. She felt that in the debate. The same cant be said for someone like Romney and Gingrich.

Shows no change from after the debate. This pollster had Mitt up 2 before the debate too. http://t.co/F3OK2hQzI'm waiting to see from the pollsters that had Rick up at the same time if they see a swing.

"Romney's lead seems to have solidified after real volatility over the past two weeks. Romney has made big inroads with conservatives over the past ten days..."
"Romney was the clear winner in the debate last night. A third of the voters (33%) said that Romney won compared to only 13% who said Santorum"

Romney barely led the part of people switching because of the debate even as a third think that he won.
And what you are missing is that they aren't comparing this poll to their poll from right before the debate, they are comparing to 2 polls ago from them. All we are discussing is if the debate changed the support percentages.

is that Romney has moved into a lead and solidified that lead as the memo states. Santorum with a good performance last night could have maintained/ moved into the lead. That didn't happen. Sounds about right.

Santorum's 16% lead among Tea Party voters has been erased and he is now tied with them; his 16% lead with Evangelical Christians has now been cut in half to 8%, and Santorum's 31% lead with self-identified "very conservatives" has now been cut to 13%.

and this:

The polling shows that three fourths of the voters are self-identified Republicans (77%) up from two-thirds (69%) Monday, while one-fifth are either Democrats (7%) or independents (13%). Three percent said they were from another party.

Romney has gone from being behind by 10% among Republicans to being 9% ahead. He now leads by 1% among men after trailing by 23% ten days ago.

to this:

The two front runners are still in a statistical dead heat, although Romney (36%) has increased his lead by 1% over Rick Santorum (33%)

If that figure for Democrats alone is faulty - an unrepresentative sample or whatever - and it almost surely is, then Romney should probably have a bigger lead. Of course, these things tend to balance themselves out. Best to just wait for more polling as everyone agrees.